POST-CRIMEAN TWISTER: RUSSIA, THE EU AND THE LAW OF SANCTIONS
EU-Russia relations have never been simple. On the one hand, these two international actors have common values and interests. On the other, they have a conflictual relationship, which has become particularly acute after the Ukrainian crisis that started in 2014. After Ukrainian crisis, the EU and Russia have entered a new era. Unfortunately, it is an era of brinkmanship. This brinkmanship is marked, prima facie, by mutual sanctions. After 20 years of partnership and good neighborliness it sounds illogically, but it is a reality. The strategic nature of the EU-Russia partnership has been placed in doubt. The aim of this article is to show that the “war of sanctions,” which has frozen official contacts and negotiations have not achieved anything. This crisis can only be overcome through dialogue. However, at the moment, the main critics of the EU sanctions amongst EU Member States are too weak to convince the other members to lift them. The article concerns the modern legal aspects and modern legal circumstances surrounding EU-Russia relations in the light of recent events and the deterioration of relations between Russia and the EU in general. In this framework, an account is given of the EU’s reaction to the Ukrainian conflict in the context of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy and of the EU restrictive measures as well as in the context of the Russian countersanctions. A special attention is paid to the EU Court of Justice case-law in the field of the restrictive measures.
About the AuthorPAUL KALINICHENKO
Professor, Jean Monnet Chair, Professor, Integration and European Law Department, Kutafin Moscow State Law University, Head of the European Law Department, Diplomatic Academy at the Russian Foreign Ministry
9 Sadovaya Kudrinskaya St., Moscow, 125993, Russia
1. Burke J.J.A. Economic Sanctions against the Russian Federation are Illegal under Public International Law, 3(3) Russian Law Journal 126 (2015).
2. Green J.A. Editorial Comment: The Annexation of Crimea: Russia, Passportisation and the Protection of Nationals Revisited, 1(1) Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 3 (2004).
3. Kalinichenko P. Shared Values and Interests in the Conflictual Relationship between the EU and Russia in The European Neighbourhood Policy – Values and Principles 115 (S. Poli (ed.), Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge, 2016).
4. Leino P. & Petrov R. Between “Common Values” and Competing Universals – The Promotion of the EU’s Common Values though the European Neighbourhood Policy, 5(15) European Law Journal 654 (2009).
5. Lukyanova E. On the Rule of Law in the Context of Russian Foreign Policy, 3(2) Russian Law Journal 10 (2015).
6. Marosi I., Csink L. Political Questions in the United States and in France in Studia Iuridica Caroliensia Vol. 4 113 (M. Hoe (ed.), Budapest: Mátyás Kapa, 2009).
7. Milano E. The Non-Recognition of Russia’s Annexation of Crimea: Three Different Legal Approaches and One Unanswered Question, 1 Questions of International Law 35 (2014).
8. Müllerson R. Ukraine: Victim of Geopolitics, 13(1) Chinese Journal of International Law 133 (2014).
9. Petrov R. & Kalinichenko P. The Europeanization of Third Country Judiciaries through the Application of the EU Acquis: The Cases of Russia and Ukraine, 60(2) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 325 (2011).
10. Tancredi A. The Russian Annexation of the Crimea: Questions Relating to the Use of Force, 1 Questions of International Law 5 (2014).
11. Weinberg L. Political Questions and the Guarantee Clause, 65 University of Colorado Law Review 849 (1994).
For citation: KALINICHENKO P. POST-CRIMEAN TWISTER: RUSSIA, THE EU AND THE LAW OF SANCTIONS. Russian Law Journal. 2017;5(3):9-28. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2017-5-3-9-28
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0.